Re-evaluating S.F. historic preservation framework

ANALYSIS Urban Development

Published 4:00 am, Sunday, May 1, 2011

City Lights Bookstore is an architectural landmark, but for cultural reasons.
Ran on: 05-02-2011
City Lights Bookstore is an architectural landmark, but for cultural reasons.

City Lights Bookstore is an architectural landmark, but for cultural reasons.
Ran on: 05-02-2011
City Lights Bookstore is an architectural landmark, but for cultural reasons.

Photo: John King

Image 2 of 3

The San Francisco Old Mint building is seen in its present form on Wednesday, Feb. 2, 2011 in San Francisco, Calif.

The San Francisco Old Mint building is seen in its present form on Wednesday, Feb. 2, 2011 in San Francisco, Calif.

Photo: Russell Yip, The Chronicle

Image 3 of 3

Joel Schechter of the Ocean Beach Historical Society wears his "Keep the Doggie Diner mascot" hat to the celebration at Sloat and 45th Street in San Francisco, Feb.14, 2005.

Joel Schechter of the Ocean Beach Historical Society wears his "Keep the Doggie Diner mascot" hat to the celebration at Sloat and 45th Street in San Francisco, Feb.14, 2005.

Photo: Lacy Atkins, The Chronicle

Re-evaluating S.F. historic preservation framework

1 / 3

Back to Gallery

If any western city shows the value of historic preservation, it's San Francisco. And if any city shows how broadly this value can be defined - not always for the best - it's San Francisco as well.

But when a Board of Supervisors committee meets today to explore whether the cause of preservation has been carried to extremes, here's something else to keep in mind: The balancing act here between old and new works more often than not.

The hearing was called by Supervisor Scott Wiener, who insists his goal is nothing more than to "look at how historic preservation fits into an entire range of city issues." The language of the hearing request goes further, asking bureaucrats to report on "the impact of historic preservation policies on other major public policy goals" and "whether legislation is warranted to ensure that all of these policy goals are met."

The fuss might puzzle a layperson who thinks of preservation as something reserved for the likes of the Ferry Building. But critics say that too often the net is cast too broadly, turning anything built more than 45 years ago into a "historic resource" that triggers time-consuming reviews if changes are contemplated. There's also criticism that development foes seek landmark status for anything they want protected, regardless of its historic value.

All evidence indicates that the critics have Wiener's ear, and that preservation advocates will turn out in force for today's hearing. The result could be another San Francisco-styled showdown with more acrimony than insight.

A range of landmarks

The sad thing is that the future of historic preservation should be discussed in this and other cities - but with a level head.

One starting point in San Francisco would be to look at the list of 34 structures that have been declared landmarks since 2001.

There's City Lights Bookstore and the Old Mint. Four cottages on timelessly picturesque Filbert Street and one of the kitschy dog's heads from the defunct Doggie Diner chain. The building that housed the AIDS Memorial Quilt and the Music Concourse at Golden Gate Park.

In other words, they range from unquestioned architectural or cultural landmarks to objects of local lore. You and I can quibble with specific entries, but on the whole they're a selective representation of how today's San Francisco views the past.

The list also shows that preservation needn't be anti-development. At least three landmarks are after-the-fact blessings of construction projects that paired old with new, such as the loving transformation of 1906's Lick Baths into the offices of Gelfand Partners Architects.

By contrast, the Historic Preservation Commission has resisted calls to pursue landmark protection for Parkmerced, a 155-acre apartment complex marketed in the 1940s as suburbia in the city - and, not coincidentally, now the focus of a large development proposal.

This doesn't jibe with the apocalypse predicted by early opponents of the commission, which voters approved in 2008. Its one real goof, voting 4-3 to make the nondescript, 1959 North Beach branch library a city landmark, was rejected by the Board of Supervisors on a 10-1 vote.

That's the thing to remember. Checks and balances do exist.

Going too far

The dilemma with preservation today is that in an ever-more-subjective world, true believers - or politically adroit cynics - can make the case for almost anything.

Defenders of the North Beach library include fans of modern architecture who feel that the style doesn't get the respect it deserves. But others use preservation arguments to draw out the process and derail efforts to build a new library on the same block.

Tactics like this are nothing more than spite - as in a similar Berkeley dispute right now that involves some of the same "concerned library users" as the ones who are battling change in North Beach.

The subjectivity also applies to city officials who get so picky over details of restoration projects or new buildings in historic districts that they slow down projects and drive up costs. But the problem isn't overzealous history buffs; it's a civic culture where everyone feels entitled to leave his or her mark on the final product. Preservation becomes another way to meddle.

If there's a benefit to today's hearing, it's that preservation should indeed be looked at as one civic value among many, rather than one before which all others must bow.

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.